The last defense is really weird

 

On information and belief, Plaintiffs' claims for infi-ingement of the Asserted Patents are barred because those patents are unenforceable as a result of inequitable conduct.
a. Two individuals, Mr. Charles Moore and Mr. Russell Fish, are
named as inventors on the face of the Asserted Patents.
b. In late 1988, Mr. Moore had previous experience designing Forthbased microprocessors, while Mr. Fish had experience in sales and marketing of microprocessors.
c. During 1989, Mr. Moore utilized the Semiconductor Design Center of Japanese semiconductor manufacturer, Oki, in Sunnyvale, California, to carry out his microprocessor design activities. Mr. Fish did not have access to the Oki Design Center.
d. During the time before the filing of U.S. Patent Application No.071389,334 (the "Application"), divisions of which issued as the Asserted Patents, Mr. Moore worked on designing the microprocessor discussed in the Application. Mr. Fish, however,
worked on marketing that microprocessor. Mr. Fish was not concerned about the problems addressed by the microprocessor design disclosed in the Application.
e. Mr. Moore did all the design work on the microprocessor disclosed in the Application by himself.
f. None of the persons substantially involved in the prosecution of the Application, including Mr. Moore and Mr. Fish, disclosed to the patent office that Mr. Moore had performed all of the design work on the disclosed microprocessor himself.
g. Mr. Moore and Mr. Fish submitted declarations signed under oath stating that Mr. Fish was an inventor of the subject matter claimed in the Application.
h. Mr. Fish did none of the design work on the disclosed
microprocessor. Mr. Fish was only responsible for marketing and potential sales of the microprocessor.
i. Mr. Fish was not an inventor of the subject matter claimed in the Application.
j. The misstatements made by both Mr. Moore and Mr. Fish that Mr.
Fish was an inventor were material.
k. Mr. Moore was motivated to state that Mr. Fish was an inventor
because he wanted to convince Mr. Fish to make every effort to market the microprocessor that Mr. Moore had designed.
l. Mr.Fish was motivated to claim inventorship both to receive a
share of any patent rights that might result fkom the Application and for the recognition of being an inventor.
m. At least Mr. Moore was aware that Mr. Fish was not an inventor
and intended to deceive the patent office when he declared under penalty of perjury that Mr. Fish was an inventor.
PRAYER WHEREFORE, the Toshiba Defendants pray for judgment that:
1. TPL and Patriot be denied all relief requested in its Complaint and take nothing;
2. Judgment be entered that the Toshiba Defendants have not infringed, directly or indirectly, any valid claim of the ' 148, '336, or '584 patent as properly construed, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents;
3. Judgment be entered that the '148, '336, and '584 patents are invalid;
4. Judgment be entered that the '148, '336, and '584 patents are unenforceable;
5. This case be declared an exceptional case if and to the extent that it is determined that TPL and Patriot have brought or maintained the instant action without an adequate pre-filing investigation as to the basis or the sustainability of its claims as filed, or has engaged in patent misuse or anti-competitive conduct, or has engaged in inequitable conduct in
conjunction with the acquisition of the '148, '336, or '584 patent, or has engaged in objectively unreasonable, oppressive, vexatious, dilatory, or otherwise inappropriate conduct in conjunction with this action, discovery herein, or its overall course of conduct with respect to the '148, '336,or '584 patent;
6. The Toshiba Defendants be awarded their costs and attorneys' fees; and
7. The Toshiba Defendants be awarded such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 38, A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED AS